Estimated $21-32 trillion hidden in offshore tax shelters

[Progressive Realist]

A new report by the Tax Justice Network, "The Price of Offshore Revisited," shows that the amount of wealth held in tax havens has increased enormously since 2004, and confirms what I previously wrote about the huge cost to tax coffers of money hidden offshore.

The report was authored by the former Chief Economist of McKinsey and Company, James Henry. Its findings advance our understanding of tax havens and demonstrate that typical estimates of wealth inequality are significantly understated.

The major finding is that offshore financial holdings now come to some $21-32 trillion, compared with the estimate in  TJN's 2005 report of $9.5 trillion (this excludes non-financial wealth, such as real estate). James makes a very conservative estimate of how much governments lose in taxes of $189 billion a year, based on earning just 3% on this $21 trillion, taxed at 30%. How conservative? This is actually less than the $255 billion annually estimated in the first TJN report, but that is based on earning 7.5% annually on offshore wealth.

Read more:http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-much-worse-when-you-count-income-hidden-in-tax-shelters-2012-7

[opebo]

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Good for them. Why should anyone be taxed for starting a business and being successful? Corporate taxes are why jobs go overseas.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Good for them. Why should anyone be taxed for starting a business and being successful? Corporate taxes are why jobs go overseas.

If we're going by this line of reasoning we might as well ask 'Why should anybody be taxed for anything?' and go back to the High King desperately hitting up enfiefed lords for money all the time.

[opebo]

Good for them. Why should anyone be taxed for starting a business and being successful? Corporate taxes are why jobs go overseas.

No, buddy, jobs go overseas because workers overseas make 1/20th what american workers do.  Owners seek slaves, and taxes are a very minor factor.

[Torie]

The number for sums in offshore tax havens cited in the report is for the wealth of all nations, not just the US, that is in offshore tax havens. In point of fact, the US laws make the tax avoidance potentialities of using such havens close to nil, unlike most other nations, where offshore money is not automatically taxed in the jurisdiction in which the individual taxpayer is a citizen irrespective of where he or she lives, or where his or her money is parked. So I suspect most of that wealth is not held by US citizens. In that sense, the article is a bit of red herring vis a vis US policy at least. The incidence for tax fraud is also higher in most places outside the US than in the US. Outside the Anglosphere, illegal/criminal tax evasion in general seems to be a respected form of performance art, rather than the execrable act of a greedy immoral narcissist.

[Vosem]

Good for them. Why should anyone be taxed for starting a business and being successful? Corporate taxes are why jobs go overseas.

No, buddy, jobs go overseas because workers overseas make 1/20th what american workers do.  Owners seek slaves, and taxes are a very minor factor.

While I agree outsourcing should be made much harder for corporations than it is now, your post contradicts itself: first you say they make money, and then you say there are slaves. If they make enough money to live off of without government aid and have the option to quit and go work someplace else, they are by definition not slaves.

Torie has an excellent post about this as usual. Though I agree countries should probably make it difficult to avoid taxes like this, there's certainly nothing morally wrong with it and if somebody succeeds or has done it in the past they shouldn't be given more than a literal slap on the wrist.

[opebo]

While I agree outsourcing should be made much harder for corporations than it is now, your post contradicts itself: first you say they make money, and then you say there are slaves. If they make enough money to live off of without government aid and have the option to quit and go work someplace else, they are by definition not slaves.

The distinction is mere semantics, Vosem - they have no power at all, and are completely controlled by the owning class.  It is a mere detail that they may be shifted from plantation to plantation.

[Vosem]

While I agree outsourcing should be made much harder for corporations than it is now, your post contradicts itself: first you say they make money, and then you say there are slaves. If they make enough money to live off of without government aid and have the option to quit and go work someplace else, they are by definition not slaves.

The distinction is mere semantics, Vosem - they have no power at all, and are completely controlled by the owning class.  It is a mere detail that they may be shifted from plantation to plantation.

I'm uncertain what you mean by the last sentence, but the first is clearly untrue -- they can always choose to go work somewhere else if they are given a better deal there, so they are clearly not controlled by any 'owning class'.

[opebo]

I'm uncertain what you mean by the last sentence, but the first is clearly untrue -- they can always choose to go work somewhere else if they are given a better deal there, so they are clearly not controlled by any 'owning class'.

Why would they be offered a 'better deal', Vosem, they have no power - they own nothing.  You might as well talk about the horse or the cow getting a better deal.

[Vosem]

I'm uncertain what you mean by the last sentence, but the first is clearly untrue -- they can always choose to go work somewhere else if they are given a better deal there, so they are clearly not controlled by any 'owning class'.

Why would they be offered a 'better deal', Vosem, they have no power - they own nothing.  You might as well talk about the horse or the cow getting a better deal.

A competitor may seek to siphon workers off the competition by giving them a 'better deal' in a true free market. The worker, who forms unions (and thus gets better deals in this fashion as well) is not comparable to the horse or cow. Like, at all.

[opebo]

A competitor may seek to siphon workers off the competition by giving them a 'better deal' in a true free market. The worker, who forms unions (and thus gets better deals in this fashion as well) is not comparable to the horse or cow. Like, at all.

They can't form unions unless the State empowers them to do so.

[Vosem]

A competitor may seek to siphon workers off the competition by giving them a 'better deal' in a true free market. The worker, who forms unions (and thus gets better deals in this fashion as well) is not comparable to the horse or cow. Like, at all.

They can't form unions unless the State empowers them to do so.

It's not necessarily even about unions; a skilled worker may be able to get a promotion in the job where he works, or he may be able to get a job with higher pay somewhere else. Obviously, I feel the State should empower private sector unions, which in the West it does. (Public sector unions are, in general, a step too far, but unfortunately the West empowers those too).

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Good for them. Why should anyone be taxed for starting a business and being successful? Corporate taxes are why jobs go overseas.

No, buddy, jobs go overseas because workers overseas make 1/20th what american workers do.  Owners seek slaves, and taxes are a very minor factor.

That's also a reason they go overseas. Wages here are too high because Americans tend to be much more materialistic. Stop with your slavery in order to score political points and listen. If everyone made less, prices would drop and a dollar would buy more. Why should I pay someone more than the work per hour they produce? It's counter productive and hurts my business.

[opebo]

It's not necessarily even about unions; a skilled worker may be able to get a promotion in the job where he works, or he may be able to get a job with higher pay somewhere else. Obviously, I feel the State should empower private sector unions, which in the West it does. (Public sector unions are, in general, a step too far, but unfortunately the West empowers those too).

Vosem, by empower unions I mean - closed shops.  If there is a 'right to work' type legal environment, unions are powerless.

http://That's also a reason they go overseas. Wages here are too high because Americans tend to be much more materialistic. Stop with your slavery in order to score political points and listen. If everyone made less, prices would drop and a dollar would buy more. Why should I pay someone more than the work per hour they produce? It's counter productive and hurts my business.

That's right - you want to lower wages and standard of living - this is the goal of neoliberalism and your party.